• prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yeah, I used to be a “free speech absolutist” too. Used to harp on about how important it is that we allow all views to be spread, regardless of how disgusting it might be… Then I grew up and realized how harmful that idea is to society.

    Slippery slope fallacy isn’t enough to convince me that having laws similar to Germany is going to lead to oppression or something. These ideologies have no place in modern society, and they should be given no quarter.

    These people use your ideal of free speech absolutism against you, and until we realize there needs to be limits, we will never progress as a society because all of our time, focus, and resources will need to be on fighting this shit over and over and over.

      • MonkRome@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure where I fall in this conversation, but, imo all hate speech is a clear and present danger. Every time you preach hate, even if you don’t have a specific immediate call to action, you are speaking to people that will take it as a call to action. I think the clear and present danger idea is really giving human beings far too much credit. Normalizing hate makes assholes think they have the support of their peers, which leads to bad things, every time. In that sense hate speech is violence. Try being on the receiving end of hate speech and you will understand just how clear and present the danger really is.

        • Papergeist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          My single-sentence comment seems to have caused me to be misunderstood.

          I’m wondering, why is the “clear and present danger” doctrine NOT being used to shut these racists down? Because from my perspective, racist hate speech is clearly dangerous.

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not a free speech absolutist.

      A free speech absolutist would say libel should be legal, and I’d disagree. There are certain things the government can do to ensure a person’s right to free speech doesn’t infringe upon anothers right to health, happiness, etc, and I think that’s okay, but that people really need to be wary of such things so that power doesn’t get too concentrated. But I wouldn’t say I’m an absolutist.

      Im just saying you shouldn’t make it illegal to be a part of a particular group, because then the next party in power will have precedent to make it illegal to be a part of a different group.